• Whether Robbie had a right to the canal view (Hunter v Canary Wharf)
• Whether Elton’s construction of a barrier to prevent the rats from coming to Robbie’s land constitutes interference with his use of Robbie’s land.
• Whether Elton’s disturbed afternoon siesta was an act of nuisance by Robbie’s shotguns.
• Whether interception of clay pigeons’ mid-air constitutes trespass to Robbie’s air-space (as an infringement on his use and enjoyment)
• Whether Elton is reasonably qualified to seek an injunction against Robbie on the grounds of private nuisance
• Whether photographer taking pictures over the fence constitutes trespass to Elton’s property.
Rule 1 to Issue 1:- Nobody has a general right to view under English Law. The right to view is not a right but a privilege as typified in Hunter v Canary Wharf. He had no property right in the view so he cannot claim that the view contributed to the value of his land
Rule 2 to Issue 2: The rats belong to nobody and so are classified as no property on the principle of Bradford Corporation v Pickles and Hunter v Canary wharf therefore the motive behind the contruction or its effect is irrelevant since the rats belong to neither party.
Rule 3 to Issue 3: ‘’Private nuisance…is the unreasonable use of man of his land to the detriment of his neighbour’’(Miller v Jackson) Elton craved peace and quiet; shotgun sounds do not contribute to that. However, Planning authority gave permission for the shooting activities but it would have been with reasonable use. This was how he made his living, hence it was a reasonable use of his property as typified by (Christy v Davey)
Rule 4 to Issue 3: A balance must be maintained between the right of the occupier to do what he likes and the right of his neighbour not to be interfered with. (Lord Wright in Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callahan). Every man has the right to use and enjoyment of his land so Elton had a right to have his afternoon siesta undisturbed if we consider his circumstance of travelling all the way to the country for peace and quiet. however, the timing of the shooting activities had to be during the day where the customers could have a clear view of what they were shooting. It would be unreasonable for them to enjoy this sport at night as they would not see their targets as well if at all as they would have during the day and in the afternoon when the sun is at its peak.
Rule 4 for issue 2: Only if the nuisance is unreasonable for both parties either to create or to bear will it constitute actionable private nuisance (Christy v Davey)
Rule 5 for issue 3: The rights of an owner of land in the airspace above the land extended only to such height above the land as was necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of the land and the structures on it, and above that height the owner had no greater rights than any other member of the public. (Bernstein v Skyviews) Therefore, he committed trespass because he was using the air for his clients’ sport of clay pigeon shooting.
Rule 6 for issue 4: In Bernstein v Skyviews a photograph was taken of the plaintiff’s property. However, this was an aerial view and at a significant height above the plaintiff’s property but this was not what happened with Elton and Robbie. The pictures of Elton’s guests were taken over Robbie’s fence, not just that but also and more importantly with malicious intent. As typified in Christy v Davey .
Rule 7 for issue 5: In Bernstein v Skyviews a photograph was taken of the plaintiff’s property. However, this was an aerial view and at a significant height above the plaintiff’s property but this was not what happened with Elton and Robbie. The pictures of Elton’s guests were taken over Robbie’s fence, not just that but also and more importantly with malicious intent and so constitutes actionable nuisance on the principle of Christy v Davey and Hollywood silver fox farm v Emmet
If Elton can prove Robbie unreasonably used his shotgun, say at night